Pimax Crystal Core and Pro

[TED]

I don't know - i really like this concept of a stripped down version and am pre-ordering. 

With fixed-foviated rendering it's more than enough. I have no issues running pico 4 with everything maxed out and maintaining 72fps in all but a formation takeoff where maybe I get 55-60. My 8kx works great too. I just don't like the fresnel lenses any more. Once I had used the pancake lenses in the pico, it's hard to go back. Even the huge fov of the 8kx is not enough to overcome this. 

I may be wrong, but I think the performance and visuals of the pimax light will be better as its got a direct connection and inwonr be relying on streaming quality, which to be honest is still pretty good in VD with the pico. 

I'm pretty confident this will work well with my 7900xtx and gonna pull the trigger. 

Edited April 16, 2024 by TED

[NAM]

Fortunately, i am in proportion of people able to tolerate 60hz.

Able to max out nearly all my 3 headset with 60hz. So performance wise not really a problem.

Half way through the pre-order, have a second thought.. wait for larger FOV 12kx.

[Qcumber]

Would a 4070 be capable for the crystal light? I am tempted!! Maybe I need to wait for a 5080. 

[Dangerzone]

12 hours ago, Peedee said:

Yes, the resolution on those headsets are lower to start with.

Ok, so,  if you have a Reverb G2 now, you don't have dynamic foveated rendering. And the new Crystal Light will be in the same situation. What resolution are you running your G2 at now? The full resolution on the Crystal will be higher, yes. But - two solutions to consider... first off - me, I run my crystal at 72fps. (You get used to that quite fast! 60fps is too low. But 72fps i just fine for me in sims). That gives me quite a number of extra fps. Also, it is quite possible to run the Crystal at somewhat lower than the full 100% resolution (which honestly is quite high it is corrected for distortions and such) and still get a better picture than G2. First off, the panels are better, the optics are better, so you get better contrast, much increased number of pixels gives higher pinsel density, and therefore even less screen door effect. The lenses gives you a bigger sweetspot and edge to edge clarity. And you get at bigger FOV too!   My G2 has some mura/dirty screen effect. On my Crystal I see none.

When I first got my Crystal, the perfomance both in DCS and the headset itself, (no quadviews and no dynamic foveated rendering working) was way worse than now. But still it was a big improvement over my G2. Now of course, all those features are working, but I still run my headset at 72fps because I like improved eye candy over 90 fps now that I am used to it.

Also Crystal is claiming improved fixed foveated rendering coming to the Crystal Light... but I guess we have to wait and see about that.

Maybe they will sell a eyetracking module for the Crystal Light later? They did that with the 8KX, but not sure how well that one worked.

EDIT: Not needing windows mixed reality stuff gives better performance with the crystal. Though I am not sure how much of an impact that has. 

Some good thoughts there Peedee. There's no doubt that the CL is a great headset for it's price point, and as a direct replacement for the HP - however I think there's more factors to consider. 

To answer your question, I run my hardware at 1:1 resolution.

Here's my understanding of the situation - please anyone point out if I'm wrong with this, as I'm not convinced my own logic is sound at this point in time and appreciate correction.  

HP Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye. That's 9,331,200 pixels for both eyes and at 90fps makes 839,808,000 pixels rendered per second.

The Crystal Light is 2880x2880 per eye. That's 16,588,800 pixels for both eyes. At 72fps that makes 1,194,393,600 pixels rendered per second - an extra 40% of rendering compared to the HP Reverb - and that at the reduced refresh rate/fps (of 72 vs 90)

40% extra is a lot, which is why I've always been of the impression that having headsets of this resolution makes DFR mandatory, not optional. Not having DFR at those resolutions seems like too much compromise:

• Having to reduce frames / refresh rate
• Having to reduce graphic settings 
• Having to use fixed foveated rendering, and only having full clarity in the center. 
• Having to reduce resolution

I agree with your statement that lowering the resolution will still give a better picture than the G2. but I'm thinking of not just the G2 comparison. I think 2 questions should be considered together:

1. How much of a better picture would I be getting compared to the G2 with the same GPU workload, and
2. How much worse of a picture would I be getting compared to having the same GPU workload load, but with DFR. 

For instance, the CL might be 25% better than the G2 which sounds nice - until one considers that having DFR might be 200% better than the G2. 

The other consideration at play is what's more economical long term. How will sticking with a 4090 and getting the Pimax Crystal with DFR compare both image wise, and cost wise to going with the Crystal Light, and upgrading to the 5090 or whatever hardware is needed to run an equivalent experience. (Or will it even). 

From my perspective, I bought a 4090 to solve all my performance problems (ignorant me ), and one lesson I've learned is that we're not going to fix issues just by 'throwing more grunt' at it. I need to start thinking smarter as well - which is where I think DFR is a significant contributor. 

But I guess none of that will be known really until after the headset is in the wild and we have a number of reviews. 

The plus side of course is the price. The light is a very affordable headset and will no doubt reach a lot of the general market, but then I question "will it really?". It will be interesting to see how having a more affordable headset works when a premium GPU is still required to run it. 

I just personally wish they had a model that was 50% or so more expensive with DFR - that would have been an instant-buy for me, but as it is now - it's going to be a wait and see I think. The only other thing that would make me buy this now instead of waiting is if Pimax actually announced that a DFR upgrade would be coming to it in the future. 

As for fixed foveated rendering - I'm guessing that's what we have now anyway - with OpenXR tools, so I don't get how 2.0 can fix things better - since it's still a fixed render and there's cost when not looking straight ahead. I'll be very interested to see what reviews make of this - whether there is something better to it, or it's just marketing hype. 

[The_Nephilim]

19 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Without DFR you will need a 4090 to run the light version. If I could afford a 4090 rig then I would most likely go for a crystal or crystal super. 

I know you  you will not need a 4090 you would just need to lower the resolution like I do currently with the G2.. I still don't like or need DFR..

 

I use a 2080ti and before that had a 1080ti. they work just fine no need to have top tier but I guess if your not poor you would not know that

Edited April 17, 2024 by The_Nephilim

[NAM]

9 hours ago, Qcumber said:

Would a 4070 be capable for the crystal light? I am tempted!! Maybe I need to wait for a 5080. 

The Pimax 8kx with 3840 X 2160 pixels per eye is more demanding.

Crystal 2880x2880.

Pimax 8kx works quite well on my system.. mine is similar to yours Amd 6900xt/5800x3d.

Your 4070 probably faster with DLSS.

 

 

[Qcumber]

57 minutes ago, NAM said:

The Pimax 8kx with 3840 X 2160 pixels per eye is more demanding.

Crystal 2880x2880.

Pimax 8kx works quite well on my system.. mine is similar to yours Amd 6900xt/5800x3d.

Your 4070 probably faster with DLSS.

 

 

8kx is 3840x2160 = 8.3Mp

Crystal is 2880x2880 = 8.3 Mp 

So they should be the same in terms of GPU demand.

G2/Pico 4 is 2160x2160 = 4.7 Mp

A crystal light will be about 70% more demanding than a G2/P4.

I can get reasonable performance from my P4 with a 4070 but need to use QVFR (fixed) to maintain 72 fps. 

What sort of settings are you using in DCS and do you use reprojection and/or QVFR? 

Edit: I have not factored in super sampling. With my P4 and QP I use an overall resolution of about 3800x3800 and DLSS scaling of 0.7. How much SS is needed for the crystal. If it needs less than 1.5 then it would be comparable for me. 

Edited April 17, 2024 by Qcumber

[Phantom711]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb The_Nephilim:

I know you  you will not need a 4090 you would just need to lower the resolution like I do currently with the G2

And what is the point of such a headset if you then decide to lower the res anyways? You put it, as if lowering the res has no negative impact on image quality.

What is your dislike of DFR based on?

Edited April 17, 2024 by Phantom711

[Nedum]

7 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Some good thoughts there Peedee. There's no doubt that the CL is a great headset for it's price point, and as a direct replacement for the HP - however I think there's more factors to consider. 

To answer your question, I run my hardware at 1:1 resolution.

Here's my understanding of the situation - please anyone point out if I'm wrong with this, as I'm not convinced my own logic is sound at this point in time and appreciate correction.  

HP Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye. That's 9,331,200 pixels for both eyes and at 90fps makes 839,808,000 pixels rendered per second.

The Crystal Light is 2880x2880 per eye. That's 16,588,800 pixels for both eyes. At 72fps that makes 1,194,393,600 pixels rendered per second - an extra 40% of rendering compared to the HP Reverb - and that at the reduced refresh rate/fps (of 72 vs 90)

40% extra is a lot, which is why I've always been of the impression that having headsets of this resolution makes DFR mandatory, not optional. Not having DFR at those resolutions seems like too much compromise:

• Having to reduce frames / refresh rate
• Having to reduce graphic settings 
• Having to use fixed foveated rendering, and only having full clarity in the center. 
• Having to reduce resolution

I agree with your statement that lowering the resolution will still give a better picture than the G2. but I'm thinking of not just the G2 comparison. I think 2 questions should be considered together:

1. How much of a better picture would I be getting compared to the G2 with the same GPU workload, and
2. How much worse of a picture would I be getting compared to having the same GPU workload load, but with DFR. 

For instance, the CL might be 25% better than the G2 which sounds nice - until one considers that having DFR might be 200% better than the G2. 

The other consideration at play is what's more economical long term. How will sticking with a 4090 and getting the Pimax Crystal with DFR compare both image wise, and cost wise to going with the Crystal Light, and upgrading to the 5090 or whatever hardware is needed to run an equivalent experience. (Or will it even). 

From my perspective, I bought a 4090 to solve all my performance problems (ignorant me ), and one lesson I've learned is that we're not going to fix issues just by 'throwing more grunt' at it. I need to start thinking smarter as well - which is where I think DFR is a significant contributor. 

But I guess none of that will be known really until after the headset is in the wild and we have a number of reviews. 

The plus side of course is the price. The light is a very affordable headset and will no doubt reach a lot of the general market, but then I question "will it really?". It will be interesting to see how having a more affordable headset works when a premium GPU is still required to run it. 

I just personally wish they had a model that was 50% or so more expensive with DFR - that would have been an instant-buy for me, but as it is now - it's going to be a wait and see I think. The only other thing that would make me buy this now instead of waiting is if Pimax actually announced that a DFR upgrade would be coming to it in the future. 

As for fixed foveated rendering - I'm guessing that's what we have now anyway - with OpenXR tools, so I don't get how 2.0 can fix things better - since it's still a fixed render and there's cost when not looking straight ahead. I'll be very interested to see what reviews make of this - whether there is something better to it, or it's just marketing hype. 

I think, there is one thing you've missed. The native resolution is like you said, but the G2 is running with 3,184 by 3,096 pixel per eye by default software setting. This is necessary to get the sharpness within the sweet spot and to fix the barrel distortion. With that in mind, the CL should be less demanding for the same system as the G2.

With my current system and the G2, the Crystal was less demanding with the same settings. Until the 72 Hz mode was enabled in the PIMAX settings, I had to run the Crystal with 90 Hz, and the G2 was running with 45 FPS with MR enabled.

I believe that the CL will be a good upgrade if you are coming from a G2, and you will get better FPS as with the G2 and the same DCS settings.

But I think many people underestimate how good eye tracking is and what big difference it is quality and performance wise.
Thanks to eye tracking and the 72 Hz mode, I could raise my DCS settings a lot.
Eye Tracking and the Crystal Light would be stunning and a no-brainer to buy it. But so I have to wait for the other Crystal with the higher resolution and hopefully eye tracking. Without, I wouldn't buy it.

6 hours ago, The_Nephilim said:

 I still don't like or need DFR..

 

Ok, you ever had a VR-system with eye tracking? That you don't like it, it's ok, if you ever had an HS with eye tracking, but it was ab bad experience for you. But if you say you don't need it, and I am looking at the specs you posted from your current system, I think you don't even know of what you are talking about. You don't need more FPS? You don't need more picture quality? That's sounds like you never ever had the possibility to test a good working VR eye tracking system. If so, I believe, you would never have said you don't need it. It's hard to believe one know how good DFR is and says he doesn't need/want it.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2024 by Nedum

[Chief_Biv]

I ran my G2 with a 3080 and I want to wait a couple of years before upgrading my PC. I ran it at 45fps in MR and with mid to low settings in DCS. G2 died so a new headset is urgent and the 3080 has to drive it. I have to choose between a Crystal and a CL. I get the benefits that come with DFR as per this:

I am thinking of approaching the purchase like this:

1. The Crystal is a dead set upgrade. I should be able to get a much better experience by way of DFR. Crisper picture, slightly better FOV and bigger sweet spot. Disadvantage is the cost, weight, and battery.

2. The CL would have to be upscaled from a lower than native resolution to render the same amount of pixels as the G2. Therefore the advantages for the CL are similar setup to G2, lower cost, weight, and slightly better sweet spot and FOV. The disadvantage is that it will not be a major upgrade from the G2, it would be more like replacing the G2 with a G2.5.

I would appreciate the opinion of people with a Crystal and a GPU similar to a 3080.

[Phantom711]

@Chief_Biv

Also consider the lower refresh rates of 72 or even 60Hz of the CL since 60 or 72 FPS are easier to achieve than 90. Assuming that the 60Hz in the CL won‘t flicker as in the G2.

[Eugel]

It´s also interesting to see how good their new "FFR 2.0" will perform.
I think I´ve read somewhere about 30% increase, but of course, that might just be marketing...
 

[TED]

With my 8kx and 7900xtx i can over simple to 1.6 in pimax app, then run everything max in dcs with msaa off (not needed due to oversampling), then easily maintain 75fps in the viper low level. 

I'm not expecting the crystal light to be more demanding than this, however I do expect a significant increase in visuals. 

[Qcumber]

25 minutes ago, Eugel said:

It´s also interesting to see how good their new "FFR 2.0" will perform.
I think I´ve read somewhere about 30% increase, but of course, that might just be marketing...
 

It sounds interesting. Especially combined with the upscaling option. I wonder if this will be better than QVFR and DLSS? 

21 minutes ago, TED said:

With my 8kx and 7900xtx i can over simple to 1.6 in pimax

SS x1.6 is quite a lot. How does it look at 1.3? 

[TED]

1 hour ago, Qcumber said:

It sounds interesting. Especially combined with the upscaling option. I wonder if this will be better than QVFR and DLSS? 

SS x1.6 is quite a lot. How does it look at 1.3? 

To be honest everything from 1.0 up looks great. I only oversample to reduce the need for msaa and increase performance. I can run at 1.0 with 4xmsaa without much difficulty too but it just feels better oversampled without msaa.

[Peedee]

17 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Some good thoughts there Peedee. There's no doubt that the CL is a great headset for it's price point, and as a direct replacement for the HP - however I think there's more factors to consider. 

To answer your question, I run my hardware at 1:1 resolution.

Here's my understanding of the situation - please anyone point out if I'm wrong with this, as I'm not convinced my own logic is sound at this point in time and appreciate correction.  

HP Reverb is 2160x2160 per eye. That's 9,331,200 pixels for both eyes and at 90fps makes 839,808,000 pixels rendered per second.

The Crystal Light is 2880x2880 per eye. That's 16,588,800 pixels for both eyes. At 72fps that makes 1,194,393,600 pixels rendered per second - an extra 40% of rendering compared to the HP Reverb - and that at the reduced refresh rate/fps (of 72 vs 90)

40% extra is a lot, which is why I've always been of the impression that having headsets of this resolution makes DFR mandatory, not optional. Not having DFR at those resolutions seems like too much compromise:

• Having to reduce frames / refresh rate
• Having to reduce graphic settings 
• Having to use fixed foveated rendering, and only having full clarity in the center. 
• Having to reduce resolution

I agree with your statement that lowering the resolution will still give a better picture than the G2. but I'm thinking of not just the G2 comparison. I think 2 questions should be considered together:

1. How much of a better picture would I be getting compared to the G2 with the same GPU workload, and
2. How much worse of a picture would I be getting compared to having the same GPU workload load, but with DFR. 

For instance, the CL might be 25% better than the G2 which sounds nice - until one considers that having DFR might be 200% better than the G2. 

The other consideration at play is what's more economical long term. How will sticking with a 4090 and getting the Pimax Crystal with DFR compare both image wise, and cost wise to going with the Crystal Light, and upgrading to the 5090 or whatever hardware is needed to run an equivalent experience. (Or will it even). 

From my perspective, I bought a 4090 to solve all my performance problems (ignorant me ), and one lesson I've learned is that we're not going to fix issues just by 'throwing more grunt' at it. I need to start thinking smarter as well - which is where I think DFR is a significant contributor. 

But I guess none of that will be known really until after the headset is in the wild and we have a number of reviews. 

The plus side of course is the price. The light is a very affordable headset and will no doubt reach a lot of the general market, but then I question "will it really?". It will be interesting to see how having a more affordable headset works when a premium GPU is still required to run it. 

I just personally wish they had a model that was 50% or so more expensive with DFR - that would have been an instant-buy for me, but as it is now - it's going to be a wait and see I think. The only other thing that would make me buy this now instead of waiting is if Pimax actually announced that a DFR upgrade would be coming to it in the future. 

As for fixed foveated rendering - I'm guessing that's what we have now anyway - with OpenXR tools, so I don't get how 2.0 can fix things better - since it's still a fixed render and there's cost when not looking straight ahead. I'll be very interested to see what reviews make of this - whether there is something better to it, or it's just marketing hype. 

I think that the smartest thing might be to wait and see the reviews first.. I'd like to (pre)order a Pimax Super... but buying from the first batch of Pimax headsets? Not sure if even I dare that, and I'm very postive to Pimax...:)  I will for sure buy a RTX 5090 as soon as they come. 

[cordite]

Who at Pimax thought that removing the eye tracking was what people were asking for? 
 

 

[Mr_sukebe]

4 hours ago, Qcumber said:

It sounds interesting. Especially combined with the upscaling option. I wonder if this will be better than QVFR and DLSS? 

SS x1.6 is quite a lot. How does it look at 1.3? 

no, it won’t be as good as DFR, though performance “could” be similar.

The point of DFR is that the eye tracking allows the area being looked to be full on visually, with the areas in the periphery to be allocated less “effort”.  In practice, it means that wherever your eyes look, it’s consistently good.

Fixed foveated rendering allows the use to define the central area of the screen for full on visuals and then for the sides of the screens to be blurry.  If your eyes move off centre, it’ll look crap.

DFR is a very clever way to save processing power whilst maintaining visuals.  

[Qcumber]

2 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

The point of DFR is that the eye tracking allows the area being looked to be full on visually, with the areas in the periphery to be allocated less “effort”.  In practice, it means that wherever your eyes look, it’s consistently good.

I agree. I use DFR on my QP. It's a massive performance increase. I was wondering if the pimax upscaling and FFR will look better than using DLSS and fixed QVFR compared to other headsets that don't have eye tracking. 

[Phantom711]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb cordite:

Who at Pimax thought that removing the eye tracking was what people were asking for?

They explain their rational quite well in their video.

They wanted to make the headset as lightweight but first and foremost as affordable as possible (also reads: as cheap as possible to produce). Now my knowledge of the technical aspects of this is limited, but I would guess that by removing the XR2 chip, eye-tracking is out of the window.

They say, that their target customers are those who want to replace their HTC Vive, Quest(2) or HP G2 with an affordable high end headset. Those people might simply say..."I didn't have eye-tracking up to now...so why would I need it in a new headset?".

[shrimpy_dikdik]

1 hour ago, Phantom711 said:

They say, that their target customers are those who want to replace their HTC Vive, Quest(2) or HP G2 with an affordable high end headset. Those people might simply say..."I didn't have eye-tracking up to now...so why would I need it in a new headset?".

I'm one of those looking to replace my G2 but I am not sure the performance without DFR on a 3090 would be worth the cost. Better visuals yes, but that isn't good enough for me if the performance is lacking.

 

 

[Eugel]

4 hours ago, cordite said:

Who at Pimax thought that removing the eye tracking was what people were asking for? 
 

Well that makes it lighter and cheaper. And many people are asking for a headset for less than 1000 $
If you want a headset with eye tracking, they still offer the regular Crystal.

[cordite]

A regular Crystal is right back to square one.

[The_Nephilim]

9 hours ago, cordite said:

Who at Pimax thought that removing the eye tracking was what people were asking for? 
 

 

well I for one was asking for it.. it is good to have options and if you want eyetracking get the Crystal for me I will take the light version any day..

[Dangerzone]

19 hours ago, Nedum said:

I think, there is one thing you've missed. The native resolution is like you said, but the G2 is running with 3,184 by 3,096 pixel per eye by default software setting. This is necessary to get the sharpness within the sweet spot and to fix the barrel distortion. With that in mind, the CL should be less demanding for the same system as the G2.

Whoa! Shut the front door! Is this fair dinkum? I didn't realise that. This does indeed add a spanner into my logic. 

And to answer your question - I've never had a VR with eye tracking / DFR. 

I still wonder how much of an upgrade going from Reverb->Crystal Light will be, compared to Reverb-> Crystal (with DFR) and whether the upgrade is worth the $699, or whether I put that 'towards' a full Crystal. 

It's harder because, as you mentioned the Crystal has the battery, and the extra weight. It's kinda like they're missing the 'sweet spot' of the market. Given that they've also announced the upcoming Crystal Super later this year, it's unlikely that they're going to have another option, so unless a competitor comes out and fills that sweet spot, I have decisions to consider.

Thanks again for enlightening me on the Reverb's pixel count.

Edited April 18, 2024 by Dangerzone